Mr T Raneti v The Restaurant Group plc and Brunning & Price Offices: 2304798/2022
JUDGMENT
The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.REASONS
[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment. ________________________ Employment Judge G Cawthray Date: 18 September 2023 Case no. 2304798/2022 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr T Raneti Respondent:(1) The Restaurant Group PLC(2) Brunning & Price Offices[1]The claim was presented in December 2022. Since that time there has, generally, beena lack of engagement with the litigation by the Claimant.[2]Most recently there was a Preliminary Hearing on 18 September 2023 which he did notattend. An email was sent upon his non-attendance prior to the hearing starting (he has not given a telephone number) inquiring whether he would attend. He did not answer it. The hearing proceeded and EJ Cawthray made a number of orders that needed to be complied with within 14 days of receipt. The orders were emailed to the parties on 13 October 2023. Principally they required the claimant to particularise the claim in order that it could be understood and to explain his non-attendance.[3]The Claimant did not respond to the orders at all (so far as the file and ECM – tribunal’selectronic case management system show). The Respondent applied for the claim to be struck out.[4]On 16 November 2023, EJ Siddall ordered the Claimant to state whether or not hewanted to pursue his claim and to comply with EJ Cawthray’s orders within 7 days. She warned him that the claim was likely to be struck-out if he did not comply.[5]Again, the Claimant did not respond to the orders at all (so far as the file and ECM – tribunal’s electronic case management system show).[6]From the history above, it is obvious that the claim has not been actively pursued. Itappears that the Claimant has abandoned the claim and has no intention in pursuing it henceforth. I think it would be unfair and prejudicial to the Respondent for this claim to continue in the circumstances. It is unclear what the claims actually are and seems that 1 Case no. 2304798/2022 in any event the Claimant does not wish to pursue them. The tribunal’s resources are finite and over-stretched.[7]In all the circumstances, the time has come to bring this claim to an end.